Joseph Kaufman & Associates is proud to announce that an article written by its attorneys Brian Lynn and Scott Sanchez has been published in the Daily Journal.
You can read the article on the Daily Journal (with a subscription) or below.
Unless overturned, Rodriguez cramps the Stiles of used vehicle purchasers
The Supreme Court of California should reverse a recent decision that excludes from the Song-Beverly Act used vehicles purchased with a remaining portion of the manufacturer’s new vehicle warranty.
By J. Brian Lynn and Scott A. Sanchez
The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act), colloquially referred to as California’s Lemon Law, is one of the nation’s strongest consumer protection laws, and places strict requirements on automobile manufacturers when they sell a defective vehicle. Driven by public safety, the Song-Beverly Act mandates that manufacturers repurchase or replace vehicles if they are not repaired after a reasonable number of repair attempts. This remedy is commonly known as the refund-or-replace provision.
Used motor vehicles purchased at retail with the remainder of the manufacturer’s new vehicle warranty have historically been considered a “new motor vehicle,” and thus were covered by the Song-Beverly Act. See Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, 123 (“We conclude the words of section 1793.22 are reasonably free from ambiguity and cars sold with a balance remaining on the manufacturer’s new motor vehicle warranty are included within its definition of ‘new motor vehicle.’”). This decision was based on, and was consistent with, the statute’s remedial purpose and the statutory language. The Song-Beverly Act’s definition of a “new motor vehicle” specifically includes “other motor vehicle[s] sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty …” California Civil Code § 1793.22(e)(2). Accordingly, in the decades following Jensen, purchasers of used vehicles with the remainder of the manufacturer’s new vehicle warranty were protected by Song-Beverly’s refund-or-replace provision.
A Lemon Law case currently pending in the Supreme Court of California threatens to overturn this thirty-year-old precedent and would eliminate this significant, pro-consumer remedy that has long been available to buyers of defective used vehicles. See Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 295 Cal.Rptr.3d 351 (granting the petition for review of the Fourth District Court of Appeal decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209). The case’s outcome will be highly consequential for California consumers, both from an economic perspective and a safety perspective.
In Rodriguez, the plaintiffs purchased a used pickup truck, with a balance remaining on the powertrain warranty. Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209, 215. One year later, the check engine light came on, and plaintiffs took the vehicle to defendant FCA’s authorized dealer. The dealer appeared to fix the issue, but over the next year, the check engine light came on repeatedly, necessitating five additional trips to the same dealer for service. Id. Plaintiffs sued FCA, in part, based on the Song-Beverly Act’s “new motor vehicle” refund-or-replace provision. The trial court granted summary judgment to FCA, concluding that plaintiff’s purchase of a used vehicle with some balance of the initial new warranty was not a “new motor vehicle” under the Lemon Law. Id. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the phrase “other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty” does not create an independent class of protected vehicle, but serves as a catchall provision for an extremely narrow vehicle class, such as new vehicles previously driven but never sold to a consumer, and those that come with full express warranties. Id. at 220.
The Rodriguez decision was a departure from Jensen, supra, and it removed consumer protections for tens of thousands of Californians. Further, it was contrary to the Song-Beverly Act’s plain language and its pro-consumer public policy goals.
In May 2024, California’s Second District Court of Appeal faced the same issue, but opted to follow Jensen, supra, and rejected the reasoning in Rodriguez, supra. See Stiles v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2024) 320 Cal.Rptr.3d 640. The Stiles court rejected Rodriguez’s “new motor vehicle” interpretation because it is not supported by the Song-Beverly Act’s grammatical structure, i.e., the Rodriguez court added limiting language that was not contained in the statute. The Stiles court noted that the definition of a “new motor vehicle” covers a demonstrator or other motor vehicle sold with the manufacturer’s new car warranty. Id. at 644. The statute’s use of “or” indicates that these are intended to be distinct categories of “new motor vehicles,” with each being entitled to protection when sold with the manufacturer’s new car warranty. Id. The Stiles court further concluded that “Section 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2) was enacted in 1992. In the more than 30 years since then, the Legislature has had ample opportunity to add such limiting language. It has not done so. It would be more than presumptuous for us to add what the Legislature has not. The [Rodriguez] court’s assertion that section 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2) has only two categories—dealer-owned and demonstrator—defies the rules of English grammar and logic.” Id.
The Stiles and Jensen courts read Song-Beverly as it was intended, based on its plain, unambiguous language. Further, Stiles and Jensen support the pro-consumer goals of the statute. Rodriguez fails in both respects, and there is no reasonable support for its self-imposed and narrow interpretation of the Song-Beverly Act.
As it reconsiders Rodriguez, the Supreme Court of California should follow Jensen and Stiles and conclude that “other motor vehicle[s] sold with the manufacturer’s new car warranty” include used vehicles sold with a balance of the new warranty remaining. This would protect used vehicle consumers’ financial interests by enabling them to obtain legal redress after purchasing defective vehicles, and would promote the safety of all Californians by helping remove defective vehicles from the state’s roadways. These are particularly important policy goals because used vehicle sales still greatly outnumber new vehicle sales each year.
We are cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court of California will reverse Rodriguez, and that used vehicle purchasers will retain the legal remedies that have been available to them under the Song-Beverly Act over the past several decades.
Brian Lynn is senior counsel, and Scott A. Sanchez is an associate at Joseph Kaufman and Associates.
Write a comment: